Would anyone like to answer this question. If irreducible complexity is not true and evolution is--then there should be an answer for this riddle.

How did natural selection and mutation produce DNA gyrase and the helicase, both of which are required for DNA to split? If DNA can't split, then it can not replicate, and life stops? According to Dawkins and Darwin this should happen one step at a time--but you need the entirety of both enzymes for any kind of DNA replication.

Assuming that there is not an answer to you question at the moment, does that mean we throw out all evolutionary theory?

Is there some particular reason you threw Darwin into your comment? I don't think he knew about DNA as a genetic mechanism. He was a bit before Watson and Crick. Is is just so easy to throw Charlie's name around?

Assuming that there is not an answer to you question at the moment, does that mean we throw out all evolutionary theory?

We never accepted it to start with. And why would we accept anything that never had the answers or the empirical evidence to even be considered a theory?

Is there some particular reason you threw Darwin into your comment? I don't think he knew about DNA as a genetic mechanism.

Ironically,Darwin and Mendel only lived fifty miles from each other,but they never met. Evolutionists in those days were no different than today,if they did'nt have an answer for something,then they just ignored it and continued in blind faith anyways.

Even if Darwin and his colleagues preferred to ignore Mendel's scientific breakthrough. It does'nt change the fact that his theory predicts that every function must be demonstrated to have the ability to evolve gradually through small incremental steps or his theory is falsified.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Charles Darwin)

If Charles acknowledged irreducible complexity as a falsification for his theory,then why do you not acknowledge AFJ's example of it?

How did natural selection and mutation produce DNA gyrase and the helicase, both of which are required for DNA to split?Ã‚Â If DNA can't split, then it can not replicate, and life stops?Ã‚Â According to Dawkins and Darwin this should happen one step at a time--but you need the entirety of both enzymes for any kind of DNA replication.

AFJ said...Would anyone like to answer this question.Ã‚Â If irreducible complexity is not true and evolution is--then there should be an answer for this riddle.

How did natural selection and mutation produce DNA gyrase and the helicase, both of which are required for DNA to split?Ã‚Â If DNA can't split, then it can not replicate, and life stops?Ã‚Â According to Dawkins and Darwin this should happen one step at a time--but you need the entirety of both enzymes for any kind of DNA replication.

Assuming that there is not an answer to you question at the moment, does that mean we throw out all evolutionary theory?

DNA replication is foundational to evolution in order to produce populations, which are the theoretical seedbed for evolution. You must have replication fork enzymes to split DNA. (The replication fork is the total mechanism of 4 enzymes and a binding protein, whereby DNA is replicated--an astoundingly intelligent and precision process.)

It is evident that the present system did not have the means to initially produce itself. So there are two possibilities.

It had outside manipulation and design by a third party.

Or you have to have an entirely different system which now somehow has to produce the enzymes first, then evolve into DNA. Even if RNA world was possible, these enzymes would be needless for millions and millions of years. They would not be selected for.

So yes, on the principles of selection itself, you can throw it out.

Is there some particular reason you threw Darwin into your comment?Ã‚Â I don't think he knew about DNA as a genetic mechanism.Ã‚Â He was a bit before Watson and Crick.Ã‚Â Is is just so easy to throw Charlie's name around?

I used Darwin in light of his concept of slow gradual steps for natural selection.

"Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps....If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin

So how long will you have faith in this theory, when it has been shown that DNA and enzymes had to happen simultaneously, and did not form "by numerous, successive, slight modifications?"